He equated his campaign against McMahon and her millions with the futility of Pickett’s Charge. Staying on the ballot at this point initially seems as futile as Pickett’s Charge. On the other hand if Peter Schiff petitions to get on the ballot, or McMahon falters, it might have some potential to impact the result.

“Rather than experimenting with less secure, less auditable methods of voting, I hope that states will use the 2010 election cycle to confirm how much more convenient, accessible and secure the Move Act, which I was otherwise pleased to support, makes military and overseas voting.”

Some revolutions are good, some questionable. Pennsylvania’s election revolution resulted in many expensive paperless, unauditable, hackable voting machines – not much different than providing overseas and military voters with expensive, paperless, unauditable, insecure internet voting.

Another example from Arizona raises questions about the potential risks to integrity inherent in mail-in voting, unlimited absentee voting, and early voting by means similar to absentee voting. This is also similar to the method of election day registration voting proposed in Connecticut this year.

The troops are supposed to be fighting for Democracy, our right to speak freely and even to protest wars if we choose. So, why do we deny or mislead them into compromising their voting anonymity? Compromising our right that everyone’s vote be anonymous?